↓ Skip to main content

Barriers in the Uptake and Delivery of Preconception Care: Exploring the Views of Care Providers

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Barriers in the Uptake and Delivery of Preconception Care: Exploring the Views of Care Providers
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10995-016-2089-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hafez Ismaili M’hamdi, Sabine F. van Voorst, Wim Pinxten, Medard T. Hilhorst, Eric A. P. Steegers

Abstract

Objectives To examine health care professionals' views of their role and responsibilities in providing preconception care and identify barriers that affect the delivery and uptake of preconception care. Methods Twenty health care professionals who provide preconception care on a regular basis were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Results We interviewed twelve community midwives, three General Practitioners, three obstetricians, one cardiologist specialized in congenital heart diseases and one gastroenterologist.We identified four barriers affecting the uptake and delivery of preconception care (PCC): (1) lack of a comprehensive preconception care program; (2) limited awareness of most future parents about the benefits of preconception care, hesitance of GP's about the necessity and effectiveness of PCC; (3) poor coordination and organization of preconception care; (4) conflicting views of health care professionals on pregnancy, reproductive autonomy of patients and professional responsibility. Conclusion We have identified four barriers in the uptake and delivery of preconception care. Our findings support the timely implementation of a comprehensive program of PCC (already advocated by the Health Council of the Netherlands) and increasing awareness and knowledge of PCC from care providers and future parents. We emphasize the need for further research on how organizational barriers lead to suboptimal PCC and how interdisciplinary collaboration and referral can lead to optimally tailored intervention approaches.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Master 25 14%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Lecturer 12 7%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 60 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 52 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 18%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 68 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#1,433
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,794
of 361,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#66
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 361,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.